That's the revenue -- more money coming in from PCs, since it's the only game in town, but less overall. But less overall means less going back into new games. Less content, shorter development times, chancier thresholds for making back the development cost, fewer megabudget games competing against each other. It costs more to make games that bring in less revenue. It's nice that it's all coming from PCs, but it's back to my original point, which was that rather than consoles holding back a game due to technical limitations, games might not be made at all because of financial constraints, or they might be released prematurely with content or features axed due to a tighter budget.

The Blues crowd is the first to turn up its collective nose at multiplatform titles, but would you rather have a game freed from the shackles of console hardware, or one that was allowed to take as long as it needed to finish? Without someone like Notch willing to burn money with no regard for return, it seems like a question that would come up in the real world.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 13, 2012, 16:05:I'm mostly just curious why, and where the particular point of disagreement is. That the multiplatform process actually represents a major drain on resources? That gaming PCs would grow to cover most of the loss? That hardware is a greater determinant of a AAA game than money?

If a game costs $12M to make in our world and sells on 3 platforms, how much less might it cost to produce the exact same game a PC-only universe? If it's $8M, would the PC market really be that much bigger? The 2 pie-slice example suggests a $6M number, which seems like overestimating the overhead.

It's not a drain per se, but more of a diversion of resources. Without that diversion, they could go elsewhere.

Also, I'm talking about the total market, not how much it costs to make. If anything, costs to produce would go up if the graphics were better.

So for instance, if a arbitrary game costs $8 million to make for multiple platforms, let's say consoles bring in a profit of $30 million, and PC $10 million. That's a 4 slice pie where PC is 1/4th of the market. That's about what we have today.But in a PC only world it might cost $10 million to make (increased costs), however the PC might bring in $20 million (increased market for PC means increased total profit). That $20 million was twice the size of what the PC brings in a multiplatform platform market, but still only half the $40 million of the total interactive entertainment market interest of today. A 1 slice pie where the pie is twice the size of the original pie's quarter. Not everyone who was interested in consoles bought PC's in this alternate universe, but a significantly higher number of gaming PC's are out there.

I'm mostly just curious why, and where the particular point of disagreement is. That the multiplatform process actually represents a major drain on resources? That gaming PCs would grow to cover most of the loss? That hardware is a greater determinant of a AAA game than money?

If a game costs $12M to make in our world and sells on 3 platforms, how much less might it cost to produce the exact same game a PC-only universe? If it's $8M, would the PC market really be that much bigger? The 2 pie-slice example suggests a $6M number, which seems like overestimating the overhead.

Dev wrote on Feb 13, 2012, 02:38:Or, if the pie slices are split up into 1 part instead of 4 parts, that one part might be larger than any one slice in the 4 part pie.

It might. But it's not likely that it would be larger than the 4 slice pie (3, really; the Wii doesn't get most of the multiplatform games), so it's less overall money cycling back into development.[...]But generally speaking, if aliens wiped out every Xbox and PS3 on Earth, it would be hard to say that the entertainment software industry would be making more money. And the mega-budget titles most likely to be held back by console limitations are the ones that need that money.

And I'm not saying the interactive entertainment industry as a whole would be making more money without consoles... i.e. I'm NOT saying that the 1 slice pie is larger than the 4 slice pie. In fact, if the 1 slice PC only pie in the alternate universe is only half the size of the 4 slice pie, it would still be bigger than the current PC market. Thats my argument, that without consoles PC would be bigger than it is today, but the industry as a whole would not likely be bigger in total dollars.

It depends on how much of the revenue from consoles currently also goes into the PC version. If there's one code base that takes a relatively minor amount of work to create 360, PS3 and PC versions, then 2 slices of the pie ends up being much less money to work with, even with all of it going to PC. If you have a game like Witcher 2 that was actually made for the PC first, how is it going to make CD Projekt more money if there's simply no second market to sell to? Again, you have to hope that in the alternate universe every single Xbox 360 sale is taken up by people who bought a gaming PC instead, which seems like a best-case scenario.

Well, not quite. Best case would be that all the PS3 and Wii owners also bought PCs and they all buy Witcher 2. But still, optimistic. In the case of this PC-centric developer it's more likely that they'd just have less money to play with for Witcher 3.

Dev wrote on Feb 13, 2012, 02:38:Or, if the pie slices are split up into 1 part instead of 4 parts, that one part might be larger than any one slice in the 4 part pie.

It might. But it's not likely that it would be larger than the 4 slice pie (3, really; the Wii doesn't get most of the multiplatform games), so it's less overall money cycling back into development.[...]But generally speaking, if aliens wiped out every Xbox and PS3 on Earth, it would be hard to say that the entertainment software industry would be making more money. And the mega-budget titles most likely to be held back by console limitations are the ones that need that money.

And I'm not saying the interactive entertainment industry as a whole would be making more money without consoles... i.e. I'm NOT saying that the 1 slice pie is larger than the 4 slice pie. In fact, if the 1 slice PC only pie in the alternate universe is only half the size of the 4 slice pie, it would still be bigger than the current PC market. Thats my argument, that without consoles PC would be bigger than it is today, but the industry as a whole would not likely be bigger in total dollars.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 20:28:Without the consoles, the PC slice has to be 3-6 times its current size to bring in the same revenue that currently goes towards multiplatform games. It doesn't seem realistic, and with chicken-and-egg unknowns the PC slice might even get smaller in the hypothetical scenario.

Or, if the pie slices are split up into 1 part instead of 4 parts, that one part might be larger than any one slice in the 4 part pie.

It might. But it's not likely that it would be larger than the 4 slice pie (3, really; the Wii doesn't get most of the multiplatform games), so it's less overall money cycling back into development.

What ways are there out of that? The cost of porting games could be colossal, tantamount to recoding the whole thing up from scratch. There could be fewer gamers around because of the existence of consoles. Console ports could be lazy afterthoughts, with most of the majority of development money going towards the PC version. None of these seem to be true. Well, the last one very occasionally.

But generally speaking, if aliens wiped out every Xbox and PS3 on Earth, it would be hard to say that the entertainment software industry would be making more money. And the mega-budget titles most likely to be held back by console limitations are the ones that need that money.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 20:28:Without the consoles, the PC slice has to be 3-6 times its current size to bring in the same revenue that currently goes towards multiplatform games. It doesn't seem realistic, and with chicken-and-egg unknowns the PC slice might even get smaller in the hypothetical scenario.

Or, if the pie slices are split up into 1 part instead of 4 parts, that one part might be larger than any one slice in the 4 part pie.

When I originally replied there weren't any reasons why beyond "Fucking consoles." But about the money going into PC games, if you look at the EA financials thread their Q3 revenue was $428/493/505 million split between PC/PS3/360, in a quarter where PC was up 110% after TOR and BF3. Unless all the profit from the consoles is being spent on ivory-backscratchers by the 1%, that's related to money that's budgeted back into development.

Without the consoles, the PC slice has to be 3-6 times its current size to bring in the same revenue that currently goes towards multiplatform games. It doesn't seem realistic, and with chicken-and-egg unknowns the PC slice might even get smaller in the hypothetical scenario.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 17:17:But you don't have any evidence, or even anything that might even suggest your case.

I could say the same about your case lol.

Since consoles are a fact of life, there's no absolute way to prove how it would be without them. But people would still want interactive entertainment, and while computers might not have replaced all consoles, I'm fairly sure there would be more of them as gaming machines without consoles. Even if just a mere half the money currently in consoles went to PC that would be a huge kick for the PC industry.

My posts and other posts in this thread have laid out reasons why we think this way. You are free to agree to disagree. Everything you've posted so far hasn't changed my mind, and I'm guessing its the same with my posts.

But you don't have any evidence, or even anything that might even suggest your case. It just seems more likely to me that there would simply be less money in the industry if it were just PCs, and that would make more difference than the state of the hardware.

I can easily identify games that were scaled back due to consoles. But would those games have been made at all if they were going to be PC only? It seems improbable, because you're basically talking about half or less of the profit and therefore a smaller budget. Instead of AAA games like Skyrim you get AA or A games like, I guess, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and still don't end up pushing the envelope.

Further, if hardware did advance more quickly, the games taking advantage of it would cost more to make, too. It's likely that hardware also hasn't jumped forward because there's no corresponding market expansion that would pay for the additional work required to make bigger and better games. There are commenters on Blue's who already feel that publishers are chasing pipe dreams launching as many high budget games as they already do.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 15:49:Those two AAA PC-only games don't push the GPU the way that Skyrim or any dozen multiplatform games do, though, and are a counterargument against the supposition that PC hardware would be pushed further without consoles. The evidence suggests that PC developers would broaden their markets towards an even lower denominator instead of delving further into the niche crowd that actually installed a video card in their PC.

My argument is they don't push the hardware since the hardware wasn't pushed to be advanced enough to make the average gaming PC higher end, due to consoles dragging the whole PC gaming development down. In other words the lowest common denominator would be higher than it is today without consoles dragging it down.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 15:49:I Googled upcoming 2012 PC exclusives and came up with this link: http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1216513p1.html . Nothing looks like it's pushing significantly more polygons that the consoles.

And for my argument thats just more evidence that consoles are holding things back.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 15:49:It's just generally hard to believe that there's so much money in high-end PC exclusives, yet every single developer and publisher has opted not to exploit it, and most of the big titles that used to be PC-only (e.g. S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis, Battlefield, Witcher) have gone multiplatform. If it were otherwise, then shouldn't genres still centered on the PC -- strategy games, mostly -- have seen their visuals surge past shooters?

Thats because there's far MORE money available in today's market going multiplatform and dumbing down a game in both gameplay and graphics to work on consoles. I.e. going 3 platforms (pc, xbox, ps3) instead of 1 platform.

There's no visual surging because thats not where the most money is right now. My argument is that without consoles holding it back, it would be further advanced than it is today.

And its not just software, its hardware too. Without the software demand, the hardware development has slowed down.

All these things you are pointing at is the current state of the entertainment market today. I'm arguing that without consoles (which is NOT how it is today) it would be far different.

That assumes that money isn't being REDUCED for the PC market to take it away and put it into console market instead. Which is my argument, that game publishers (and thus devs) have focused spendinsumes that there's a comparable amount of money being sunk into game development, which might not be the case if the income streams from the consoles vanished. That the current PC gamer market is large enough on its own to support AAA games and their largg on consoles, taking it away from PC.

The current PC market on its own currently can support PC exclusive AAA games (see starcraft 2, civ V, etc). However, most big games like skyrim aren't PC exclusive. The devs make it lowest common denominator like dx9 because its cheaper when doing multiplatform, and then they throw in a few extra graphics options for PC (if you are lucky). That game is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about.

Those two AAA PC-only games don't push the GPU the way that Skyrim or any dozen multiplatform games do, though, and are a counterargument against the supposition that PC hardware would be pushed further without consoles. The evidence suggests that PC developers would broaden their markets towards an even lower denominator instead of delving further into the niche crowd that actually installed a video card in their PC.

What recent high profile AAA games were PC only? S.T.A.L.K.E.R., which apparently didn't do well enough to safeguard funding for its developer (and is now going multiplatform). I Googled upcoming 2012 PC exclusives and came up with this link: http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1216513p1.html . Nothing looks like it's pushing significantly more polygons that the consoles.

It's just generally hard to believe that there's so much money in high-end PC exclusives, yet every single developer and publisher has opted not to exploit it, and most of the big titles that used to be PC-only (e.g. S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis, Battlefield, Witcher) have gone multiplatform. If it were otherwise, then shouldn't genres still centered on the PC -- strategy games, mostly -- have seen their visuals surge past shooters? No one's tried to outdo the scope of Total Annihilation, for example. Dawn of War looks nice, but not stunningly so.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 12:31:Being pushed farther and faster assumes that there's a comparable amount of money being sunk into game development, which might not be the case if the income streams from the consoles vanished. That the current PC gamer market is large enough on its own to support AAA games and their large development teams.

That assumes that money isn't being REDUCED for the PC market to take it away and put it into console market instead. Which is my argument, that game publishers (and thus devs) have focused spending on consoles, taking it away from PC.

The current PC market on its own currently can support PC exclusive AAA games (see starcraft 2, civ V, etc). However, most big games like skyrim aren't PC exclusive. The devs make it lowest common denominator like dx9 because its cheaper when doing multiplatform, and then they throw in a few extra graphics options for PC (if you are lucky). That game is a prime example of exactly what I'm talking about.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 05:37:The anti-console argument seems to suppose that if there were no consoles, every console gamer would have a high end gaming PC, which seems like a grievously flawed premise. Without the console base, the sales base would be cut in half (being generous). How many PC-only games have pushed the limits of hardware? Witcher 2 is going to the 360. Maybe Civilization 5? Or Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2? It seems more likely that without the consoles providing additional income streams, there would just be less games period and the bar would be lowered all the way down to Facebook games and whatever Blizzard puts out.

No thats not my argument at all. My argument is that top end of PC gaming development (graphics especially) would be far more advanced without consoles. The PC edge would have been pushed further and faster.

That has nothing to do with every consoler buying a PC.

Even if that were the case it would be likely to be a $300 one, not a top end gaming one. Remember the days when it took $1000 PC to be a gaming PC? Nowadays a gaming computer can be built for $500 or less (in large part because its not needed to buy a top end CPU & graphics card to get high settings for most games on 720p type graphics, due in large part to consoles holding back the development).

Being pushed farther and faster assumes that there's a comparable amount of money being sunk into game development, which might not be the case if the income streams from the consoles vanished. That the current PC gamer market is large enough on its own to support AAA games and their large development teams.

I don't see the cost being as much of an issue per se as much as the fact that the average computer comes with an Intel GPU. A lot of people won't buy a gaming PC because they already have a computer that can do everything besides 3D games.

Fletch wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 01:16:I can't think of a single PC game that I hated because the "graphics sucked". It was always some other reason like, as you mentioned, AI, or just shitty gameplay or design. Nowadays, more often than not, it's dumbed-down gameplay and consoley interfaces.

That means you are in the minority. I'm like you, I want gameplay over flashy graphics.

Publishers track very carefully what games sell. Guess what they are? They are flashy graphics CoD games with recycled and dumbed down gameplay. As long as people line up and throw money at games like that (and the recycled overpriced DLC), the industry will keep producing them. Everytime they dumb it down a little more and people buy more of it than before thats a strong signal to the publisher to keep on doing what they are doing.

And now we have tons of people paying subscriptions just to track stats in a game like that, lol.

Quboid wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 12:41:There's plenty of games whose attempts at being as realistic looking as possible are integral to making them immersive as possible, which helps them as escapism: BF, CoD, Skyrim, FIFA. Things like better AI should be a higher priority but it seems wrong to question who cares. A lot of people. Most people, I'd say.

I don't feel more immersed in games now than I was 15 years ago. Quite the opposite. I disagree that being realistic-looking is integral to making any game immersive, even the games you mention. I was as immersed in Daggerfall and Might and Magic 7 as I am in Skyrim.

We are sold "graphics" as a huge deal in PC gaming, but I can't think of a single PC game that I hated because the "graphics sucked". It was always some other reason like, as you mentioned, AI, or just shitty gameplay or design. Nowadays, more often than not, it's dumbed-down gameplay and consoley interfaces.

I think people who play PC games and follow PC games get somewhat jaded over the years as they see the progression in realism in PC graphics via pre-release screenshots and lengthy magazine and gaming site articles comparing, side by side, the minutiae of differences between this setting and that setting, and how this version of Game 2011 compares graphically to Game 2010. The graphics may be improving year after year, but the fun and immersion sure aren't. For me, immersion and graphical realism have no relation. And although it will be cool to see photorealism in a game someday, the game won't be good or bad because of it.

Orogogus wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 05:37:The anti-console argument seems to suppose that if there were no consoles, every console gamer would have a high end gaming PC, which seems like a grievously flawed premise. Without the console base, the sales base would be cut in half (being generous). How many PC-only games have pushed the limits of hardware? Witcher 2 is going to the 360. Maybe Civilization 5? Or Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2? It seems more likely that without the consoles providing additional income streams, there would just be less games period and the bar would be lowered all the way down to Facebook games and whatever Blizzard puts out.

No thats not my argument at all. My argument is that top end of PC gaming development (graphics especially) would be far more advanced without consoles. The PC edge would have been pushed further and faster.

That has nothing to do with every consoler buying a PC.

Even if that were the case it would be likely to be a $300 one, not a top end gaming one. Remember the days when it took $1000 PC to be a gaming PC? Nowadays a gaming computer can be built for $500 or less (in large part because its not needed to buy a top end CPU & graphics card to get high settings for most games on 720p type graphics, due in large part to consoles holding back the development).

Fletch wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 23:07:Who cares? I don't understand the desire for photorealistic games. I play to escape reality. The most immersive games for me are far from realistic-looking. Doom2 and Quake are still a blast. I think Uncanny Valley would be just too jarring a place to lose myself.

There's plenty of games whose attempts at being as realistic looking as possible are integral to making them immersive as possible, which helps them as escapism: BF, CoD, Skyrim, FIFA. Things like better AI should be a higher priority but it seems wrong to question who cares. A lot of people. Most people, I'd say.